WeHo vs. Culver City (homes, purchases, live)

[botticelli]

Originally Posted by LuvSouthOC

I am sorry but, for adults, I do not believe in prohibition, shutting down brothels, bathhouses, outlawing gambling, etc. Let people do what they want and let them suffer the consequences of their actions.

are you saying when they get sick due to their own reckless lifestyle choice and suffer for years, they don't cost a cent of taxpayers money? I will be totally fine if that's the case.

[botticelli]

Originally Posted by yby1

I thought this was about WeHo vs Culver City? LOL.

thanks.

can we get back to the topic, at least making reference to Culver city if we have to talk about gay life?

[LuvSouthOC]

Originally Posted by botticelli

are you saying when they get sick due to their own reckless lifestyle choice and suffer for years, they don't cost a cent of taxpayers money? I will be totally fine if that's the case.

I don't have control over the health care system. I simply believe in a free society and not a nanny state. Am I to infer from your question that you agree with Disgruntled? Would you ban the purchase of large quantities of cup cakes/twinkies, cigarettes and fizzy soda too? If not, why not?

[botticelli]

Originally Posted by LuvSouthOC

I don't have control over the health care system. I simply believe in a free society and not a nanny state. Am I to infer from your question that you agree with Disgruntled? Would you ban the purchase of large quantities of cup cakes/twinkies, cigarettes and fizzy soda too? If not, why not?

I believe in free choice as long as your choice doesn't have any negative impact on others, including financial impacts.

If your behavior does have an effect on others, then regulation is needed. (for example, you can't feel free to make a full stop of your car in the middle of a busy street)

For example, I support right of abortion, but I am definitely against public funded abortion - no one is forced to have unprotected sex and get pregnant when she doesn't want to.

[disgruntled la native]

Originally Posted by LuvSouthOC

I don't have control over the health care system. I simply believe in a free society and not a nanny state. Am I to infer from your question that you agree with Disgruntled? Would you ban the purchase of large quantities of cup cakes/twinkies, cigarettes and fizzy soda too? If not, why not?

There aren't pricy government programs to take care of obese people. There are for people with HIV. The government pays for meds and often food, housing, stipend.

[LuvSouthOC]

Originally Posted by disgruntled la native

There aren't pricy government programs to take care of obese people. There are for people with HIV. The government pays for meds and often food, housing, stipend.

Yes there are pricey government programs (the ACA). We pay premiums for obese people to get treated for a myriad ailments.

[LuvSouthOC]

Originally Posted by botticelli

I believe in free choice as long as your choice doesn't have any negative impact on others, including financial impacts.

If your behavior does have an effect on others, then regulation is needed. (for example, you can't feel free to make a full stop of your car in the middle of a busy street)

For example, I support right of abortion, but I am definitely against public funded abortion - no one is forced to have unprotected sex and get pregnant when she doesn't want to.

Any behavior we engage in impacts others in society. That is part of living in a civilization. This is no justification in banning the things you want to ban. Your pecuniary interest is real in terms of costs, I acknowledge that. However, in the grander scheme of things the costs are de minimus and must be weighed against societal norms which include liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If we were to take your approach, government would be justified in regulating nearly every aspect of our lives.

[disgruntled la native]

Originally Posted by LuvSouthOC

Yes there are pricey government programs (the ACA). We pay premiums for obese people to get treated for a myriad ailments.

Not as much as HIV, but Obamacare certainly has forced us to pay for everyone else who may or may not make healthy choices. My premium has basically doubled since Obamacare. Meanwhile, I haven't used it at all hardly so I'm paying for the rest

[LuvSouthOC]

Originally Posted by disgruntled la native

Not as much as HIV, but Obamacare certainly has forced us to pay for everyone else who may or may not make healthy choices. My premium has basically doubled since Obamacare. Meanwhile, I haven't used it at all hardly so I'm paying for the rest

So then, if you want to ban gay men from getting high, going to some grungy building to engage in high risk sex, will you also ban alcohol, cigarettes, twinkies and sodas? Mayor Bloomberg, are you there?

How did prohibition work out?

[botticelli]

Originally Posted by LuvSouthOC

Any behavior we engage in impacts others in society. That is part of living in a civilization. This is no justification in banning the things you want to ban. Your pecuniary interest is real in terms of costs, I acknowledge that. However, in the grander scheme of things the costs are de minimus and must be weighed against societal norms which include liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If we were to take your approach, government would be justified in regulating nearly every aspect of our lives.

No, I never suggested banning this and that. Instead, I intended to suggest that government regulation (and taxation) should di-incentivize people from making bad and costly lifestyle choices. For example, making alcohol and cigarettes expensive (cigarettes in Canada is several times more expensive for example) so that those who do want to enjoy them will pay a premium for the risk they pose to the society.